ENKEI WHEEL "GROUP BUY" FEELER THREAD
06-06-2012, 07:59 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They already make the 17x10+38. I have a set on my car and f20kills also ran this same set without problems on stock flared fenders. As Living in the redline said, the 17x10 +50 RPF1 would fill a void in this size for the s2000 and be the new 17x9 +45 RPF1. It would fit stock fenders with the right combination of tire size and camber specs.
17x10 +50 and 255 RS3s on mildly flared fenders I did a while back. Camber specs were very mild, but I cant remember the exact number.
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
17x10 +50 and 255 RS3s on mildly flared fenders I did a while back. Camber specs were very mild, but I cant remember the exact number.
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
By spunkysandoval at 2012-06-06
06-06-2012, 08:05 PM
#22
06-06-2012, 08:25 PM
#23
Mark (colatkitty) said that from his experience the Enkei NT03+M is the strongest wheel Enkei makes. He said that he has bent and re-bent countless wheels (and so have I), but he has never been able to bend the NT03+M despite all his abuse. If you could make a custom size/offset, I believe the ideal combination for the track would be 17x10 +40.
I believe +40 is ideal because:
- if you have an offset higher than +40, the wheel will be too close to the inside of the wheel well, and will actually rub against the inside of the wheel well under full compression. This applies mainly to people who are lowered on coilovers. For example, I run +48 offset, and there is actually a pretty severe wear mark because of the contact the tire makes against the inside wheel well. You can even see it starting to crack from the engine bay.
- if you have an offset lower than +40, the wheel will be too outboard to make it fit well without extensive fender modification. You can roll and pull the fender to fit +40 pretty easily.
I believe 10" width is ideal because:
- 255 is the best tire width for non-staggered naturally aspirated S2000's, too much more and the tire just does not get up to temp as well. 10" is the high end of the recommended wheel width for 255 tire.
- if you are going to make a 9.5" width, you might as well go for the 17x9.5 +38 which is being produced already.
Bottom line: there is no one who makes an affordable 17x10 +40 wheel that is strong enough to hold up against the abuse of the track. (And no, I don't consider $2700 BBS RG-R or $3000 Volk TE37 as affordable.) Make this wheel and it will sell like hotcakes amongst the racing community.
I believe +40 is ideal because:
- if you have an offset higher than +40, the wheel will be too close to the inside of the wheel well, and will actually rub against the inside of the wheel well under full compression. This applies mainly to people who are lowered on coilovers. For example, I run +48 offset, and there is actually a pretty severe wear mark because of the contact the tire makes against the inside wheel well. You can even see it starting to crack from the engine bay.
- if you have an offset lower than +40, the wheel will be too outboard to make it fit well without extensive fender modification. You can roll and pull the fender to fit +40 pretty easily.
I believe 10" width is ideal because:
- 255 is the best tire width for non-staggered naturally aspirated S2000's, too much more and the tire just does not get up to temp as well. 10" is the high end of the recommended wheel width for 255 tire.
- if you are going to make a 9.5" width, you might as well go for the 17x9.5 +38 which is being produced already.
Bottom line: there is no one who makes an affordable 17x10 +40 wheel that is strong enough to hold up against the abuse of the track. (And no, I don't consider $2700 BBS RG-R or $3000 Volk TE37 as affordable.) Make this wheel and it will sell like hotcakes amongst the racing community.
But I've got the 17X9 +45 and the 17X10 + 50's would give 18 less inner clearance. Anyone know if there is enough room for this?
06-06-2012, 08:29 PM
#24
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
10 Posts
Since it is the tire that is contacting the inner wheel well and not the wheel itself, the offset and tire width is the only thing that really matters. So if you go from +45 to +50, you are losing 5 mm of clearance on the inside, not 18. I will tell you now that +48 with 255 width RS3 already rubs on the inside, so I don't know why people are asking for +50. They are either not lowered 1" or more, are not driving hard enough to reach full compression, or haven't taken a good look at the inside of the wheel well. I am lowered 1" on Evasive-Spec TEIN SRC (16 kg/mm springs) with -3.3 camber in the front with a J's L2 camber joint. I am rubbing on the inside pretty severely on full compression.
Maybe a compromise would be 17x10 +42?
Also, according to Enkei, 17x9.5 +38 is the only 17" NT03+M wheel that Enkei makes. I don't see a 17x10 +38 listed there. If they do make these, know anyone who stocks them?
http://www.enkei.com/size_chart/NT03.pdf
Maybe a compromise would be 17x10 +42?
Also, according to Enkei, 17x9.5 +38 is the only 17" NT03+M wheel that Enkei makes. I don't see a 17x10 +38 listed there. If they do make these, know anyone who stocks them?
http://www.enkei.com/size_chart/NT03.pdf
06-06-2012, 08:40 PM
#26
Nam, I think the stock the 17x10 +38 in RPF1 and not NT03+M. I know ASM made modifications to the body to make sure they don't contact the wheel well. Also, I think Dustin meant that going from 9" +45 to 10" +50 will decrease the inner clearance by 18mm. I once remembered hearing that the offset is quite important to suspension design. I have absolutely no idea where I heard this from but the point sounded somewhat valid.
06-06-2012, 08:45 PM
#27
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
10 Posts
What's easier: running a lower offset wheel and paying $100 to flare out your fenders a bit more, or making modifications to the body so it doesn't contact the wheel well?
I know RPF1 comes in 17x10 +38, but it is notoriously weak. I was asking specifically about the NT03+M which is supposedly much, much stronger.
What I am trying to express here on this thread are some things that are (or should be) important to people who track their cars hard.
1) Strength. I don't want a wheel that will bend. Strength is more important than light weight. If you can get a forged wheel and have both, then great. But strength always wins.
2) Fitment. If you are lowered and track your car hard, you will realize that you actually need a low offset to avoid rubbing on the inside of the wheel well. You can always flare your fenders more, but you can't punch out the inside of the wheel well (at least not cost effectively).
3) Size. 17x10 > 17x9.5 >> 17x9
That said, I don't understand why in a R&C forum people are looking for 17x9 +60 RPF1. It's weak, it will rub against the inside wheel well if you are lowered, and it isn't the optimum wheel size for 255 tire. Just... why?
David, when you are talking about clearance, you need to be very specific about what you are talking about. If you are talking about the tire contacting against the inner wheel well, then you need to think about only the offset and the tire width. If you are talking about the wheel contacting against the A-arms at full lock, then yes, you need to think about the offset and the wheel width. We know that 17x10 +55 will clear the A-arms, because 949Racing made them--so it only makes logical sense that 17x10 +50 will also clear. But I believe Dustin wasn't talking about clearance of the A-arms, he was talking about his tire contacting the inner wheel well at full compression. Especially since he is lowered about the same as me and is running sticky NT01 tires.
I know RPF1 comes in 17x10 +38, but it is notoriously weak. I was asking specifically about the NT03+M which is supposedly much, much stronger.
What I am trying to express here on this thread are some things that are (or should be) important to people who track their cars hard.
1) Strength. I don't want a wheel that will bend. Strength is more important than light weight. If you can get a forged wheel and have both, then great. But strength always wins.
2) Fitment. If you are lowered and track your car hard, you will realize that you actually need a low offset to avoid rubbing on the inside of the wheel well. You can always flare your fenders more, but you can't punch out the inside of the wheel well (at least not cost effectively).
3) Size. 17x10 > 17x9.5 >> 17x9
That said, I don't understand why in a R&C forum people are looking for 17x9 +60 RPF1. It's weak, it will rub against the inside wheel well if you are lowered, and it isn't the optimum wheel size for 255 tire. Just... why?
David, when you are talking about clearance, you need to be very specific about what you are talking about. If you are talking about the tire contacting against the inner wheel well, then you need to think about only the offset and the tire width. If you are talking about the wheel contacting against the A-arms at full lock, then yes, you need to think about the offset and the wheel width. We know that 17x10 +55 will clear the A-arms, because 949Racing made them--so it only makes logical sense that 17x10 +50 will also clear. But I believe Dustin wasn't talking about clearance of the A-arms, he was talking about his tire contacting the inner wheel well at full compression. Especially since he is lowered about the same as me and is running sticky NT01 tires.
Go 20k!
06-06-2012, 08:57 PM
#29
Since it is the tire that is contacting the inner wheel well and not the wheel itself, the offset and tire width is the only thing that really matters. So if you go from +45 to +50, you are losing 5 mm of clearance on the inside, not 18. I will tell you now that +48 with 255 width RS3 already rubs on the inside, so I don't know why people are asking for +50. They are either not lowered 1" or more, are not driving hard enough to reach full compression, or haven't taken a good look at the inside of the wheel well. I am lowered 1" on Evasive-Spec TEIN SRC (16 kg/mm springs) with -3.3 camber in the front with a J's L2 camber joint. I am rubbing on the inside pretty severely on full compression.
Maybe a compromise would be 17x10 +42?
Also, according to Enkei, 17x9.5 +38 is the only 17" NT03+M wheel that Enkei makes. I don't see a 17x10 +38 listed there. If they do make these, know anyone who stocks them?
http://www.enkei.com/size_chart/NT03.pdf
Maybe a compromise would be 17x10 +42?
Also, according to Enkei, 17x9.5 +38 is the only 17" NT03+M wheel that Enkei makes. I don't see a 17x10 +38 listed there. If they do make these, know anyone who stocks them?
http://www.enkei.com/size_chart/NT03.pdf
Anyone with the 949's that were 17X10 +52 have inner rubbing issues? I would think those would have to rub the front lower A-arm at full lock.
I had major rubbing on the A-arm with the +63 up front on a prior set. I also had inner fender rubbing cause of the softer springs. Both have been corrected which is why I wouldn't want to sacrifice the inner clearance which is difficult to properly correct without a BFH.
06-06-2012, 09:00 PM
#30
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
10 Posts
Dustin, try to visualize what is actually contacting the wheel well. It isn't the wheel that is touching the inner wheel well, it is the tire. Let's say you kept the offset exactly the same, but made the wheel 1" wider. The tire would still be centered at exactly where it was before, since the offset hasn't changed. The tire sidewall would be stretched out a bit more, but the inner shoulder would still be in approximately the same position as it was before. Therefore, the clearance has not changed. That is why only the tire width and offset matters when you are talking about clearance between the tire and the inner wheel well. I do acknowledge that the tire width will change a bit when you make the wheel wider, which is why manufacturers state what wheel width the tire was measured on when they give tire width specifications. But adding 1" to the wheel will not magically make the tire width 1" wider.
Dustin, are you saying that you are not getting inner wheel well rubbing with +45 offset on 255 tire? Then maybe 17x10 +42 would be a win? All I know is that 17x9 +48 will rub against the inner wheel well with 255 tire, because that is what I am running. If an extra 3mm of clearance alleviates that problem, then 17x10 +42 might work (accounting for an extra 3mm of clearance for the gain in tire width when running wider wheel).
Dustin, are you saying that you are not getting inner wheel well rubbing with +45 offset on 255 tire? Then maybe 17x10 +42 would be a win? All I know is that 17x9 +48 will rub against the inner wheel well with 255 tire, because that is what I am running. If an extra 3mm of clearance alleviates that problem, then 17x10 +42 might work (accounting for an extra 3mm of clearance for the gain in tire width when running wider wheel).